The Gaming Den

Anyone here played it, or read through, got thoughts on it?

Launched with good artists giving it recognizable aesthetics, but other than fan art I don't know much about how it plays.

The core gameplay loop is turn based combat. In lieu of a concept of initiative, the players pick a player go to, then the MC picks an NPC mech to go, and this repeats until all players have acted, and then - typically - all remaining NPC mechs act, and then repeat.

There's drastically more tactical depth than 5e's basic "shoot at it until it dies". Mechs have a hit point track and a heat track, and filling either completely is bad news. All PC mechs have 4 Structure and 4 Stress, and lose a Structure when their hit points empty, and lose a Stress when their Heat track fills beyond capacity. Losing one of either is a debuff on the spot and, after the first one, has a chance to destroy the mech outright. Losing all Stress or all Structure is guaranteed to destroy the mech. Most NPC mechs have ony 1 Structure and 1 Stress, and even the stronger ones tend to have less than 3 of each so will 100% be destroyed at the point where PCs have a chance of being destroyed. Even before you get into build options all PCs can either regular-attack to drain hit points or Tech Attack to both debuff and force heat onto an enemy mech.

You get two Quick Actions or one Full Action each turn, plus your base movement which is a separate thing and doesn't count towards actions taken. You can also Overcharge for an extra Quick Action at the cost of random heat gain, and how much heat this costs increases each time you Overcharge.

In terms of permanent differences between PCs - at character generation you gain three Talents, some stat points, and some other stat points for your Pilot sheet that get used outside of mech combat. You also have limited spaces to select mech gear, although you can respec after every Full Repair. In the corebook everyone has the relatively versatile Everest at chargen; expansions add the Sagamartha and Chomolungma, a larger more defensive mech and a more Tech Attack focused mech, I can't remember which way round, I was using the Everest in the campaign I'm actually in.

At each level up you get a new Talent, some more stat points - and a new License Level. Technically all the starting mech and equipment options are under the "GMS" license, and this has an actual meaning in the game's setting. Each License Level you gain is for a particular mech frame provided by one of five private providers. At each License Level you get some weapon and equipment options (for example, LL1 Blackbeard grants you the "Chain Axe" that is slightly better than main melee weapons provided by GMS and a piece of mech gear that makes you better at grappling / able to grapple larger mechs) and at LL2 for a given frame, you get to use that frame instead of any of the GMS frames. The supposed design philosophy is that while all of the licensed frames have some role they fulfil better than the GMS frames, none are meant to be outright better across the board than any GMS frame - for example the Blackbeard moves faster and can use a grappling hook to do grapples at range, but has a smaller heat cap than the Everest and a disadvantage against tech attacks. I haven't played long enough to have any real doubts about this. Each frame also has a "Core Power" which can only be used by that frame - for example, the Everest can take 1 extra Quick Action per combat, and once per mission (under normal circumstances) can gain save bonuses and an extra Quick Action per turn for an entire combat.

There are also extra bonuses at level 3, and again there are GMS ones and there is an extra set available for each of the private providers if you have 5 license levels between that one provider's frames.

the above is less coherent and less comprehensive than it could be, because it's Late Here(TM)

Thanks this is a good overview.

Does the combat tend to skew towards certain builds dominating standard challenges? Like if getting drones is stronger than having one powerful robot.

I have played a fair amount of Lancer, and have generally found it to be quite enjoyable. It has a lot of room for customizing your character/mech build, and your party composition, and a good set of objective based rules for how to win combats and diverse npc mechs for tactically addressing.

The turn based combat is just very good.

The not turn based combat is magic tea party with extra steps. It's not very good, but as long as you mostly focus on the combat it's a very good game.

Hi,
Yes, I had a chance to take a look at it recently. The visual identity is definitely a strong point; it immediately gives the game a distinct personality. The gameplay is quite solid, but it takes a little time to grasp its full depth. The pace can seem slow at first, especially if you're coming from more dynamic systems, however, the mechanics become interesting once you've mastered them. Overall, it has good potential, but it really depends on whether you prefer more tactical games or fast-paced action.